tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 03 22:06:12 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: "under" (was KLBC:Name that Song)
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 01:05:39 -0400
In a message dated 96-06-01 02:48:31 EDT, you write:
>>Isn't "a rock's below-area" an object.
>>
>>beHwI"av
>
>{nagh bIngDaq} is an adverbial phrase. Substitute another adverb to see
>how it works:
> nIteb jIyIn I live alone.
> naDev jIyIn I live here.
> pa' jIyIn I live over there.
>
>Hmmm... wait a minute. {pa'} and {naDev} are NOUNS in Klingon, not
>"adverbials" (which according to TKD 5.4 "describe the manner of the
>activity"). The adverbials listed are adverbs of manner or time, not place
>(like "here", "there" and "everywhere" in English) or conjunctions (like
>{vaj}).
>
>Maybe {nagh bIngDaq} IS the object after all
Interesting!! :)
Until this discussion began, I, too, looked at Locative constructs at
Adverbial clauses. That is because in Earth language they are Adverbial
clauses. But, TKD pp27-28 clearly states "It is worth noting at this point
that the concepts expressed by the English adverbs 'here, there,' and
'everywhere' are experssed by nouns in Klingon: {naDev} 'hereabouts,' {pa'}
'thereabouts, {Dat} 'everywhere.' These words may perhaps be translated more
litereally as 'area around here,' 'area over there,' and 'all places,'
respectively. Unlike other nouns, these three words are never followed by
the locative suffix."
I found this within Section 3.3.5. "Syntactic Markers."
Contrary to my own belief up to now, I read in this passage that Locatives
are Noun constructs, not Adverb constructs. Such Noun clauses would
constitute an Object of a Verb.
Now I'm really interested in comments from the Experts. tlhIHvaD wanI'vam
DIqaD
peHruS